i-glut
In his article on “Postmodernism and Consumerist Society” Fredric Jameson states that it is common for our society to obliterate historical data as quickly as possible from our attention, he titles this occurrence our historical amnesia. The media is suggested to be the main instrument in aiding us to forget our past through maintaining a constant flow broadcasting the present. I do not believe that our society is as eager to forget as Jameson insists. I think that our society does not have a problem with remembering our past; we have holidays, parades and celebrations reminding us of our past. I think that this “historical amnesia” that Jameson speaks of comes from the bulge of information introduced into our lives by the Internet. In previous generations traditional and cultural knowledge was passed down through local cultural ties. Now, because of the Internet we have access to a global library of traditional and cultural information. The cultural filters of our families and communities do not have as much of an effect on what we learn and assimilate into our values. We are faced with an information overload. I do not think any mind is capable of retaining and understanding all of the information provided by the Internet, and this is why I suggest that we do not choose to forget our history; we are unable retain all of the information presented to us without proper filters. How should we respond to the absense of these important knowledge filters? How can we reintroduce them into our daily lives without feeling constrained or sheltered?
-Judith
“Postmodernism and Consumer Society”
13 Fedric Jameson.
Individualism/death of that?
A vision of the modernist was to launch a “unique self and private identity, a unique personality and individuality, which can be expected to generate its own unique vision of the world and to forge its own unique, unmistakable style”-Fedric Jameson. So did it not? How about Postmodernism what did it contribute to individualism? Collage personality, pastiche personalities.
Both periods have unique characteristics that are reflected in each individual person. Individualism is defined as a term used to describe a moral, political, or social outlook that stresses human independence and the importance of individual self-reliance and liberty. Individualists promote the unrestricted exercise of individual goals and desires. They oppose most external interference with an individual's choices - whether by society, the state, or any other group or institution. Individualism is therefore opposed to holism, collectivism, communalism, and communitarianism, which stress that communal, group, societal, racial, or national goals should take priority over individual goals. Individualism is also opposed to the view that tradition, religion, or any other form of external moral standard should be used to limit an individual's choice of actions.- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism
So is there really no such thing as individualism? Are the theorists right that in competitive capitalism there was such thing as individualism but today in corporate capitalism there is no such thing? Or was it just a myth so we would all feel like individuals and not cattle. Referring back to Wikipedias definition of individualism there is no such thing. The definition would mean we never have contact with other humans. It is true that we all have characteristics of one another but what make us individual I feel are our perspectives and our imaginations. No one can ever have the same perspective or same imagination as the next person. Just because we think we all see green we do not. Everyone sees the color in a different variation. Even if we dress the same and on the most part look the same, it does not mean we are the same. We all embody different information regarding the past present and future. Like Judith had mentioned there is too much info for one individual to obtain. When placed together we create a collective, a wealth of potentially shared knowledge. We are not incapable of having a unique vision of the world but by having a collective we are able to have variations of information that transpires into some form that brings us past ourselves. It does not make us non-individualistic but reminds us there is more than I.
-Candace
2 comments:
Jameson - Postmodernism and Consumer Society Comments
In addition to Judith’s Comment…
Jameson seems to suggest that our living 'in a perceptual present' and our limited retention of historical data are new human attributes, but I am inclined to argue that these attributes have existed throughout history. Scribes; hieroglyphics; handprints on the cave wall... what is the point of recording the present, biased and/or distorted the recording may be, if we could simply remember it?
Further Notes
At first I disagreed with Jameson’s comment that nothing new can be created. I wanted to argue that architecture could be like biological evolution whereby suddenly and randomly a mutation develops to spawn a new breed. However, this new breed is still directly linked to the old (rooted in the past); only a part of it has changed. And that is the way people live: through context, relating supposedly ‘new’ things, or concepts, to what we have already experienced, thereby negating the ‘newness’ of the thing (or concept). Is it possible to learn (or make) something new without relating it to what we already 'believe' to be true? For example, is it possible to imagine an alien without defaulting to animal or insect anatomy? Is it possible to create a ‘new’ architecture when materials remain the same (or an amalgamation of existing materials)? When put in this physical sense, my answer is no. But there is so much more to architecture than physicality, or even ‘concept.’ There is the experiential dimension: if the mode of navigation is altered to the point where the human participant no longer understands it; no longer has a point of reference; no longer can rely on his or her past experiences, then something new truly is created! And when this is the case, and there is a disjuncture between human and architecture (as Jameson describes it), perhaps we (in the non-architecturally educated sense) will become more aware of architecture as an entity in its own right, as something more than the ‘background,’ as something worthy of contemplation and support (in prevention of its extinction).
One more note: is Jameson suggesting that the opiate of the masses is formalized education? That being taught a ‘style’ in school depreciates that style’s impact on society? If so, this seems to suggest that there is greater value in learning architecture through experience and ‘trying’ rather than through an institution…
In response to the concept introduced by Jameson regarding “historical amnesia”, I think another factor aside from the media that has degraded our memory retention is our ever-increasing placelessness. The article also discusses the world as mapable space, wherein one can position themselves in coordinates relative to adjacent spaces. However our urban condition is that of a global community, which exists only in time, without a “place”. One could argue that our dependence on a global means of communication, (i.e. internet, cellular etc.), makes us placeless within our environment as we are able to move electronically through space at rapid speeds. If we are placeless than we can no longer associate an actual physical space to our memory. Memory is aided by symbols and icons, which we identify with, if we do not have a physical space to impose events and occurrences then the mind has fewer things to associate with that memory. Icons and symbols are like tabs which retrieve memory; perhaps our memory of events in the future will connect in a virtual way with the development of virtual spaces that are in a sense real to our perception.
Post a Comment